Ok, the title's kind of a tease.
Out today, "Operation Avalanche", a fake documentary about faking the moon landing:
(disclaimer: I'm Nasa administrator James Webb's voice in the film)
From an article in "Wired", they had to lawyer up before filming:
Quote"Doing it for real" means just that. Johnson and Miller made Operation Avalanche, out now, at Johnson Space Center in Houston. They told NASA they were making a documentary, showed up wearing '60s clothes, and surreptitiously shot a movie about two CIA agents who help the space agency by faking the Apollo 11 mission.
But first they got a lawyer.
Full Wired article here: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/operation-avalanche-nasa-fake-documentary-fair-use/ (https://www.wired.com/2016/09/operation-avalanche-nasa-fake-documentary-fair-use/)
So, I'm not quite sure about making a popular film that tells a convincing story about an obvious conspiracy theory.
Does it help the truth since the film makers say it's fiction?
Or does it help perpetuate the lie?
Thoughts?
JoeActor
Ha, I liked that trailer! Will try to check it out sometime. Interesting article too.
I don't have an issue with making something like this which is obviously mocking the conspiracy idea, as most reasonable people would be "in" on the joke. And based on the trailer, it seems like it's obvious that it's a parody. But I don't doubt that some idiots 20-30 years from now will seize upon it and claim it was real. Not much you can do about that.
Quote from: Firebird on September 16, 2016, 04:19:11 PM
Ha, I liked that trailer! Will try to check it out sometime. Interesting article too.
I don't have an issue with making something like this which is obviously mocking the conspiracy idea, as most reasonable people would be "in" on the joke. And based on the trailer, it seems like it's obvious that it's a parody. But I don't doubt that some idiots 20-30 years from now will seize upon it and claim it was real. Not much you can do about that.
I think I'm of a similar mind on this.
Haven't seen the film yet either, but hoping to...
Looks funny!
I think that, depending on how easy they make it look in the mockumentary, more people might believe in the conspiracy theory once they watch it.
:conspiracy:
I've heard about this a while back. The premise was--- there's no stars in the background in the pics and videos while on the moon. But, let's take it from a basis of fizziks.
The moon has 1/6th the gravity of the earth, so that means that any object will fall 6 times slower then on the earth. When the Astronauts are skipping around one can measure the height of the skip and calculate how long it supposed to take to return to the surface. And, that the length of the skip should be proportionally.
Be aware that one also has to take into accounts of video frame speed to be accurate. I haven't done the math be cause of being unable to know the frame rate and speed of the video. But if you can find that---you'll have your answer.
What do I think. Well, they went to the moon because all the fizziks is known to do the deed so there's no reason the tally it as fake. There's no stars showing because of the light color of the surface of the moon that scatters the light and obscures the stars, the same as city lights do when observing stars near a city. The faint stars won't show. The moon reflect is intense enough to outshine the stars complete.
I can see the "faked moon landing" folks grinding their teeth about this: "Those assholes are rubbing our faces in it, and helping the vile NASA charlatans mislead the public with a double fake." Or maybe not. It's hard for me to get into the conspiracy theorist (CT) mindset, even though I've interacted online with various proponents of various conspiracy theories for several years. Such a bizarre worldview in which the preponderance of evidence against their idea only serves to confirm it.
I expect that some of the younger set for whom the moon missions are ancient history could become interested in the conspiracy story because of this movie, and if they're inclined to CT thinking, this may be the thing that serves as an entry into that world. More likely though, if they have a CT inclination they've already found kindred spirits on the internet so this movie won't affect them much one way or the other.
As for NASA, it seems rather unlikely that they would have allowed the film makers the access they got if they'd given an explicit description of their project, so the bitching about "exploiting openness" is disingenuous, in my opinion.
It looks like an entertaining flick, and it's cool that you were involved in it, joeactor. :thumbsup:
Quote from: Recusant on September 17, 2016, 05:14:40 PM
I can see the "faked moon landing" folks grinding their teeth about this: "Those assholes are rubbing our faces in it, and helping the vile NASA charlatans mislead the public with a double fake." Or maybe not. It's hard for me to get into the conspiracy theorist (CT) mindset, even though I've interacted online with various proponents of various conspiracy theories for several years. Such a bizarre worldview in which the preponderance of evidence against their idea only serves to confirm it.
I expect that some of the younger set for whom the moon missions are ancient history could become interested in the conspiracy story because of this movie, and if they're inclined to CT thinking, this may be the thing that serves as an entry into that world. More likely though, if they have a CT inclination they've already found kindred spirits on the internet so this movie won't affect them much one way or the other.
As for NASA, it seems rather unlikely that they would have allowed the film makers the access they got if they'd given an explicit description of their project, so the bitching about "exploiting openness" is disingenuous, in my opinion.
It looks like an entertaining flick, and it's cool that you were involved in it, joeactor. :thumbsup:
Thanks, Rec!
Just read some online comments about it being impossible for humans to survive the Van Allen belt radiation levels... So, of course space is all faked. Sheesh...